Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 09:36:57 +0100 From: Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc> To: Denis Shaposhnikov <dsh@neva.vlink.ru>, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: unionfs 5.4 Message-ID: <1DE178D508C1D70D1B5F9E87@cc-171.int.t-online.fr> In-Reply-To: <87mzth18e2.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> References: <87is46kzk1.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <41C26F23F7DF023CB3DF35C5@cc-171.int.t-online.fr> <20050305151903.GC26240@hub.freebsd.org> <87mzth18e2.fsf@neva.vlink.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+-le 06/03/2005 11:33 +0300, Denis Shaposhnikov =E9crivait : |>>>>> "Kris" =3D=3D Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> writes: | BTW, from man mount_nullfs: |=20 | BUGS | THIS FILE SYSTEM TYPE IS NOT YET FULLY SUPPORTED (READ: IT DOESN'T | WORK) AND USING IT MAY, IN FACT, DESTROY DATA ON YOUR SYSTEM. USE AT | YOUR OWN RISK. BEWARE OF DOG. SLIPPERY WHEN WET. |=20 | So you can't suggest to use nullfs instead of unionfs, because "is | well-documented to be broken". Well, nullfs and unionfs have the same BUGS section :-) OTOH, nullfs has never panic'ed me, whereas unionfs has. --=20 Mathieu Arnold
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1DE178D508C1D70D1B5F9E87>